Opinion
CASE NO. C11-5350BHS
09-08-2011
CHASSIDY F. LUCAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOE CAMACHO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION
FOR A STATUS CONFERENCE
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Joe Camacho, Deborah Camacho and Angela Stephenson's ("Camacho Defendants") motion for a status conference (Dkt. 45). The Court has reviewed the brief filed in support of the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion for the reasons stated herein.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 5, 2011, Plaintiffs Chassidy Lucas, Bianca Lucas, and CB Stormwater ("Plaintiffs") filed a complaint against Defendants Joe Camacho, Deborah Camacho, Angela Stephenson, George Parker, and Ali Parker. Dkt. 1. On May 16, 2011, the Court issued an order establishing certain deadlines as follows: Joint Status Report due by 9/13/2011, FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 8/23/2011, Initial Disclosure Deadline is 9/6/2011. Dkt. 3.
On August 3, 2011, the Camacho Defendants filed a motion for a status conference. Dkt. 45. Although Plaintiffs have filed various documents, it is unclear whether Plaintiffs filed a document that was responsive to the Camacho Defendants' motion. On August 19, 2011, the Camacho Defendants replied. Dkt. 53.
II. DISCUSSION
In their motion, the Camacho Defendants request a judicial status conference "to resolve various decorum, procedural, factual, and jurisdictional issues which for reasons stated below cannot be resolved without strict judicial oversight." Dkt. 45 at 1-2. The Camacho Defendants list several issues that it seeks to discuss with the Court. Id. at 4. Only three of these issues actually relate to this civil action: the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference, the propriety of a stay, and a protective order.
With regard to the discovery conference, all parties must attempt in good faith to hold a discovery conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(2). It is Plaintiffs' responsibility to initiate the communications necessary to comply with the Court ordered conference. Dkt. 3 at 4-5. If any party fails to participate in framing a discovery plan, the party may be subject to sanctions by the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(f). Failure to comply with this Court order may result in dismissal of the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. (b)(2). With these rules in mind, the Court does not find that there is a need for a judicial conference at this time.
With regard to a stay and/or a protective order, the proper method of requesting relief from the Court is by filing a motion. Local Rule 7.
III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the Camacho Defendants' motion for a status conference (Dkt. 45) is DENIED.
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge